Welcome!
Hello, Brískelly~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - autowelcome... :) --
Brískelly[
citazione necessaria
15:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ciao Brískelly, e benvenuto a Wikipedia! Your Featured picture nomination was incorrectly posted. The instructions for creating a subpage and transcluding it to the candidates page can be found here. I have fixed the template for you, so all you need to do now is add a description. Note that the image must also appear in an article to be eligible for featured picture status, see the Featured picture criteria. Grazie! -- Chris.B | talk 16:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I'd just like to let you know about Wikipedia Picture Peer Review, which I think you would benefit from, the next time you feel you have a photo worth nominating for Featured Picture Candidates. I noticed a large number of opposes in the Louvre nomination you made, which suggests perhaps the nomination wasn't prepared as well as it could be. The peer review is a much more constructive (as opposed to deconstructive!) assessment, suggesting a number of ways you could improve your image's chances before you nominate it for FPC. Hope to see you there! -- mikaul talk 08:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Biskelly. Thanks for your contributions at FAC, but I have to wonder how you can come to an assessment of articles in a minute or two. In addition, comments such as "Support: it's OK" are contradictory. To be worthy of promotion to FA status requires more than an OK standard.
I wonder whether you can offer more information to justify your supports or opposes in the future. Tony (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you've opposed a few FA candidates for being too short. As long as the articles are comprehensive, there is no minimum length for an FA. You might want to check out the Featured article criteria to see what kinds of things can stop an FA. Thanks for participating in the process - we need more good reviewers! Karanacs ( talk) 15:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Along the same lines, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your Oppose vote for the FAC of Ian Svenonius. You criticized the article as being "too short", but length isn't really a factor for FA, comprehensiveness is. I'd really appreciate if it if you gave the article another look. Thanks! Drewcifer ( talk) 01:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to echo the other editors here in asking you to reconsider your "Strong oppose" recommendation for
the FAC of Imagination (magazine). Length is
not a requirement for a featured article. It would also be helpful to the nominator and other editors if you could provide more details as to what specifically you think makes the article not comprehensive. Thanks,
69.202.60.86 (
talk)
16:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- "(too short) and not comprehensive. OK?" Um, yes, I know that's what you said. See my above post. I asked if you could provide more details (on the FAC page preferably) on what makes the article not comprehensive. Justifying your opinion is different from repeating it. 69.202.60.86 ( talk) 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, please post your justifications on the FAC page, not my talk page. Also, you keep referring to things being "too short", which is not actionable. What specifically is too short about the sections/article? I have a hard time believing that "all the sections are too shorts". Describe what "fundamental informations" is. Seeing as how you're using the phrase "away-from-good-prose", I'm having a hard time believing that you're the best judge of "good prose". 69.202.60.86 ( talk) 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to echo the other editors here in asking you to reconsider your "Strong oppose" recommendation for
the FAC of Imagination (magazine). Length is
not a requirement for a featured article. It would also be helpful to the nominator and other editors if you could provide more details as to what specifically you think makes the article not comprehensive. Thanks,
69.202.60.86 (
talk)
16:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I have replied to your comments there and carried out an edit hopefully addressing your concerns. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I thought it may be Italian after I looked at your user page :) I thought it had a negative meaning due to "malin" part. Leave and learn :) Looking forward to hear if you have any other comments about the article! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Sid Barnes FAC
Thank you! -- Dweller ( talk) 09:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding references to the article. Are there any other issues with the article or is this the only thing preventing FAS? GordyB ( talk) 17:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like you to reconsider your comment on the aforementioned FAC, which you opposed because it does not have a bibliography. It has a reference section, which is preferred in FA criterion 2c. Furthermore, there are no book sources, so there is no need for a bibliography. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've responded to your comment, and I'm still not accepting that a bibliography is needed. --♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk)
16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've responded again. --♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk)
17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've responded again, and I still don't believe a bibliography is needed. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've responded again. --♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk)
17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Please ellaborate here; I have responded. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I understand that the article hasn't changed; I was asking you to highlight some specific concerns, so I could know where to improve. Provide some specific examples of the issues raised. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Your commentary on the Introduction to Evolution featured article attempt is actively being discussed on Talk:Introduction to evolution. It would be most appreciated if you would be kind enough to contribute to the dialog there. It may be that your concerns have been addressed. If not, then further guidance would be appreciated. The page should be well organized; if you go to the bottom and scroll up you should be able to locate your specific concern which I took the liberty of copying/pasting to this page. Many thanks for following up on the discussion.-- Random Replicator ( talk) 23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Just wondered if your oppose still stands. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your
constructive criticism and input in making
Alpha Kappa Alpha a
featured article.
Best,
miranda 08:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Briskelly, the FAC for Imagination (magazine), which you commented on, has been restarted. Would you mind commenting again on the new page? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Brískelly, I was wondering why you removed the {{ wide image}} from the panorama in Loyalsock State Forest? I have restored it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto for List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania and moving the gallery, which follows the model of two featured lists. Just curious, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Where appropriate, I've added further references and citations. I'm afraid your comment on the Written Chinese FAC was a bit terse, and I've made some reasonable guesses as to which sections you had in mind. At any rate, please have another look at your convenience, and if you could, please be more precise about which sections you feel are under-referenced. Thanks! BrianTung ( talk) 03:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
sockpuppet on en.wiki:
Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Brískelly. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Brískelly~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
22:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) ( talk)
11:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Brískelly~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - autowelcome... :) --
Brískelly[
citazione necessaria
15:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ciao Brískelly, e benvenuto a Wikipedia! Your Featured picture nomination was incorrectly posted. The instructions for creating a subpage and transcluding it to the candidates page can be found here. I have fixed the template for you, so all you need to do now is add a description. Note that the image must also appear in an article to be eligible for featured picture status, see the Featured picture criteria. Grazie! -- Chris.B | talk 16:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I'd just like to let you know about Wikipedia Picture Peer Review, which I think you would benefit from, the next time you feel you have a photo worth nominating for Featured Picture Candidates. I noticed a large number of opposes in the Louvre nomination you made, which suggests perhaps the nomination wasn't prepared as well as it could be. The peer review is a much more constructive (as opposed to deconstructive!) assessment, suggesting a number of ways you could improve your image's chances before you nominate it for FPC. Hope to see you there! -- mikaul talk 08:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Biskelly. Thanks for your contributions at FAC, but I have to wonder how you can come to an assessment of articles in a minute or two. In addition, comments such as "Support: it's OK" are contradictory. To be worthy of promotion to FA status requires more than an OK standard.
I wonder whether you can offer more information to justify your supports or opposes in the future. Tony (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you've opposed a few FA candidates for being too short. As long as the articles are comprehensive, there is no minimum length for an FA. You might want to check out the Featured article criteria to see what kinds of things can stop an FA. Thanks for participating in the process - we need more good reviewers! Karanacs ( talk) 15:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Along the same lines, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your Oppose vote for the FAC of Ian Svenonius. You criticized the article as being "too short", but length isn't really a factor for FA, comprehensiveness is. I'd really appreciate if it if you gave the article another look. Thanks! Drewcifer ( talk) 01:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to echo the other editors here in asking you to reconsider your "Strong oppose" recommendation for
the FAC of Imagination (magazine). Length is
not a requirement for a featured article. It would also be helpful to the nominator and other editors if you could provide more details as to what specifically you think makes the article not comprehensive. Thanks,
69.202.60.86 (
talk)
16:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- "(too short) and not comprehensive. OK?" Um, yes, I know that's what you said. See my above post. I asked if you could provide more details (on the FAC page preferably) on what makes the article not comprehensive. Justifying your opinion is different from repeating it. 69.202.60.86 ( talk) 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, please post your justifications on the FAC page, not my talk page. Also, you keep referring to things being "too short", which is not actionable. What specifically is too short about the sections/article? I have a hard time believing that "all the sections are too shorts". Describe what "fundamental informations" is. Seeing as how you're using the phrase "away-from-good-prose", I'm having a hard time believing that you're the best judge of "good prose". 69.202.60.86 ( talk) 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to echo the other editors here in asking you to reconsider your "Strong oppose" recommendation for
the FAC of Imagination (magazine). Length is
not a requirement for a featured article. It would also be helpful to the nominator and other editors if you could provide more details as to what specifically you think makes the article not comprehensive. Thanks,
69.202.60.86 (
talk)
16:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I have replied to your comments there and carried out an edit hopefully addressing your concerns. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I thought it may be Italian after I looked at your user page :) I thought it had a negative meaning due to "malin" part. Leave and learn :) Looking forward to hear if you have any other comments about the article! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Sid Barnes FAC
Thank you! -- Dweller ( talk) 09:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding references to the article. Are there any other issues with the article or is this the only thing preventing FAS? GordyB ( talk) 17:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like you to reconsider your comment on the aforementioned FAC, which you opposed because it does not have a bibliography. It has a reference section, which is preferred in FA criterion 2c. Furthermore, there are no book sources, so there is no need for a bibliography. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've responded to your comment, and I'm still not accepting that a bibliography is needed. --♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk)
16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've responded again. --♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk)
17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've responded again, and I still don't believe a bibliography is needed. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've responded again. --♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk)
17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Please ellaborate here; I have responded. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I understand that the article hasn't changed; I was asking you to highlight some specific concerns, so I could know where to improve. Provide some specific examples of the issues raised. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Your commentary on the Introduction to Evolution featured article attempt is actively being discussed on Talk:Introduction to evolution. It would be most appreciated if you would be kind enough to contribute to the dialog there. It may be that your concerns have been addressed. If not, then further guidance would be appreciated. The page should be well organized; if you go to the bottom and scroll up you should be able to locate your specific concern which I took the liberty of copying/pasting to this page. Many thanks for following up on the discussion.-- Random Replicator ( talk) 23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Just wondered if your oppose still stands. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your
constructive criticism and input in making
Alpha Kappa Alpha a
featured article.
Best,
miranda 08:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Briskelly, the FAC for Imagination (magazine), which you commented on, has been restarted. Would you mind commenting again on the new page? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Brískelly, I was wondering why you removed the {{ wide image}} from the panorama in Loyalsock State Forest? I have restored it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto for List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania and moving the gallery, which follows the model of two featured lists. Just curious, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Where appropriate, I've added further references and citations. I'm afraid your comment on the Written Chinese FAC was a bit terse, and I've made some reasonable guesses as to which sections you had in mind. At any rate, please have another look at your convenience, and if you could, please be more precise about which sections you feel are under-referenced. Thanks! BrianTung ( talk) 03:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
sockpuppet on en.wiki:
Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Brískelly. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Brískelly~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
22:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) ( talk)
11:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)